Welcome to The Rant! Your very own electronic cesspool of naughty, left wing propaganda. MADE IN AMERICA!!!

Sunday, September 01, 2013

Making a Bad Situation Worse

"When innocent lives are taken in the most
reprehensible of ways, to whom do their souls cry? Whence comes their
justice? Is America's moral leadership in the world carved out by the
tip of its sword?"

Charles M. Blow from yesterday's New York Times

Words that should be etched in granite, Mr. Blow. Now what the heck did I do with my chisel....

Maybe this is the only positive legacy to come out of the disgusting administration
of George W. Bush: he has left America, the planet's Super Cop, quite
war-weary indeed. An attack on Syria - while the motivations might very
well be noble - could create more problems than it solves. Maybe now is
the time to come up with an alternative to military intervention. In
fact the time is long overdue.

The Syrian military's use of chemical weapons on civilians, particularly innocent children, is despicable. But do you remember the humanitarian catastrophe that occurred when we toppled the Butcher of Baghdad? Was it worth it? And don't forget that Saddam remained an ally of ours for years after he gassed his own people in 1982. At least we can give President Obama a little bit of credit for human compassion. That sort of thing never bothered Ronald Reagan. Bashar al-Assad is a brute - no doubt about it - but as Mahatma Gandhi once observed, people like that eventually (and always) fall of their own weight.

While it's true that giving
peace a chance is futile in a situation like the one in Syria, an attack
on the Syrian military could result in collateral damage that will only
inflame the Arab world. In case it's slipped your mind, we poll lower
than athlete's foot in that region of the planet these days. Why throw gas on the
fire?

Let's say we go in there and blast Assad and his entire government straight to the pit of hell:

QUESTION: What happens next?

ANSWER: We don't know.

This is not a good idea.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

– Barack
Obama, December 20, 2007

He now claims that a president doesindeed have such power (He got it right the first time) but that he's going to let the House of Reprehensibles decide this matter. That is what is known as an "easy way out". No matter what Obama does, the right wing would be screaming bloody murder. This is a way for him to avoid that situation. Clever. It will be interesting to see whether or not this congress - which has obstructed him on every matter for almost six years - gives him the green light. Still, it's a refreshing thing to see a president seeking congressional approval to declare war (however limited) for the first time in seventy-two years.

Isn't it ironic that we should be caught unaware when a president does something he is mandated by the Constitution to do? We surely do live in interesting times.

Read
more here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/01/200992/ever-private-obama-kept-even-close.html#emlnl=Daily_News_Update#storylink=cpyWe surely do live in interesting times.

The headline in one of the New York tabloids the other day read, "THE BRITISH AREN'T COMING! THE BRITISH AREN'T COMING! Well, YEAH! And can
you blame them for not wanting to go down this road again? I can't.

We'd be wise not to go down that road again either.

Tom Degan

Goshen, NY

SUGGESTED READING:

Please Tell Us the Truth; We Can Handle It

by Kevin Swanwick

"In a case of poignant imagery that echoes the photo-op of Donald
Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein shaking hands, Kerry’s demonization of Assad
seems awkward when viewed next to the photograph of him, and his lovely
wife, having a quiet and cozy dinner with President Assad and his
glamorous investment-banker wife in 2009."

Kevin Swanwick is an old friend and partner in non-felonious crime (If you're a longtime reader of this blog you might recall the trip the two of us made to the Abbey Road Studios in England back in May of 2010). He's also the best writer I know. Above is a link to a little ditty he wrote late last night where he explains - more ably that I ever could - what exactly is wrong with this picture. I hate when he does that.

84 Comments:

I think that no matter what Obama does in this situation he's going to get ripped by the right. If he moves in to help the civillians who are being killed he's a warmonger. If he stays out of it he's an unfeeling coward.

What about the stories that have been going around the interwebs (well, Facebook, anyway) that one of the rebel groups claimed they got the stuff from Saudi Arabia and didn't know what it was, and set it off accidentally? One of the versions I read said that the claim was being investigated, but I heard no more. I am much more cautious than I was 10 years ago, and I was agin it then.

I see the old WMD ploy is being used again and people are falling for again.Should we go in and kill a million and a half like we did in Iraq? Should we use depleted uranium to keep on killing them for decades like is happening Iraq?

Russia and China will not stand by and let us attack Syria or Iran without paying a huge price this time. Israel is the wild card here, they will be attacked or will attack Iran and Syria. If they use their nuclear weapons Russia might respond and then we are off to the races!we shall soon see if this country is fatally stupid or not.

H. Clinton was the first to use the term red line that Syria must not cross, that has painted Obama into a corner.

Nancy Pelosi met with Syria's Assad despite the Bush Administrations objections in April 2007. I believe that was before Rumsfeld shook hands with Assad, and the Kerry family had dinner with him.

To blame one party or the other for the Presidents predicament is stupid. He put himself there! He alone is responsible for his current situation.

I support his action in going to Congress to get approval before any military action! It is the correct Constitutional thing to do. And it gives him cover either way the vote turns out. But for a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize it seems strange that he has gotten into this position to begin with.

But the results of his actions, regardless of attacking or not, are on his shoulders. The President and our Country would not be at this point if Clinton's Red Line threat had not been issued. Either the President did or did not approve of his Secy of State pending position statement. In either case, it is his Administration, and he is it's leader.

Personally, I wish Clinton had never issued the Red Line policy. Unless you have the political power to support such a statement you are better off not making it. I wish Obama had not repeated that policy. I don't believe he has the skills needed to form a military alliance to effectively act and back up the policy. What did this Administration hope to gain by floating the Red Line Policy?

I believe that the attack was done by the rebel's. Why would Assad do something that would bring an attack on him by the USA? How would his attacking civilians help him win the civil war? What does he gain?The rebels by staging a gas attack have much more to gain as long as they can pin the attack on the Syrian Govt. The videos of the victims and their treatment do not match those resulting from an attack using the type of gas as claimed. I feel the gas was chloride, but that means little to the victims I'm sure.

What benefit does it gain the US in supporting either side in their Civil War? Both sides have taken positions in the past that were nor pro American. Remember what happened when we aided the Afghanistan people against the Soviets? After they won, a group of them supported a war against their benefactors, the US.

George Bush, you need to take responsibility for crashing the economy and starting two needless wars, and stop passing the buck down to the guy who followed you. and Anonymous, we know exactly what happened in Benghazi, you just won't accept the truth because all you do is parrot Fox news. Smokey, Obama is not "confused" he's doing what Bush never did, he's getting all the informatin and THINKING before acting, and he's also including the congress in the decision which is what your GOP heroes have been whining about.

"In a sign of Wall Street’s resurgent influence in Washington, Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word. (Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)

Now what are we going to do about banks writing their own legislation and regulations? Let the “free market” decide? Vote for the next candidate in their pocket? Or regulate them?"

Thanks to central planning starting with your hero FDR, the US government has unfunded liabilities estimated at anywhere from $100 trillion to over $200 trillion. We don't know the real amount because only with the US government can Enron style accounting be legal.

Yet you economically brain dead progressives back the shit for brains central planners that make shitty laws like Dodd Frank, over 2,300 pages:

The Dodd-Frank Act, signed into law in July 2010, spans 2,300 pages and directs federal regulators to burden job creators and the economy with more than 400 new rules and mandates. The Act was touted by its supporters as “Wall Street reform” and Washington’s response to the financial crisis of 2008. Yet, Dodd-Frank reaches far beyond Wall Street and does not address the real causes of the crisis. It did nothing to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and end their taxpayer-funded bailouts. In fact, the Dodd-Frank Act continues the bailouts by enshrining “too big to fail” into law, placing taxpayers at risk for trillions of dollars of future bailouts.

Two independent, nonpartisan agencies – the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office – reported to the Committee that the economy and taxpayers will bear an enormous cost for Dodd-Frank:•$27 billion will be taken out of the economy because of Dodd-Frank;•2,600 new full-time Federal employees will need to be hired to implement the Act’s 400-plus regulatory mandates at a cost to taxpayers of $3 billion during just the first five years of implementation.

Mozart Prove that the House GOP are the only ones demanding the Constitution per followed on the subject of military action.So you are now speaking out against James and Jay, certainly not right wing nut Conservatives by any stretch. Even Tom, our fair minded host is opposed to attacking Syria, as am I. Your problem frankly is you are so blind a supporter of Obama that you are outside main stream liberals nation wide. A pro war liberal.

Maybe you can educated we conservative Doves what the national interest is in attacking Syria? Or explain why our allies of the past are just saying no!

It is funny how you have tried blame Bush for Obama' s lack of planning and alliance building skills on a former President.

Chuck, I never once said I approved of attacking Syria, I simply said that the GOP has been whining that Obama never lets them in the loop and now he has, so they can man up for a change and accept the heat for whatever decision THEY make. And I wasn't the one that first brought Bush into this. Try checking before commenting.

Iraq turned out to be the cakewalk that they said it would be because Iraq did not have any powerful friends. Syria does. On the first day of hostilities, Russia said it would attack Saudi Arabia, by by oilfields. Iran will close the Straits and shut down 70% of oil tankers from delivering to us. Overnight gas goes to 8, 12 or 16 dollars a gallon.

The whole Middle East will be in turmoil and every body in the US will be feeling the results. Food from the west coast will stay there and you will be living off your body fat soon enough.

And Obama is getting brownie points because he is letting congress in on the decision. This thing could blow up in his face and he would not even serve out the rest of his term.

Chuck, I don't remember ever blaming this on BUsh, so please stop acting like I did.Also, I'm not agreeing with the "conservative" side. If Bushor any other Republican were president right now, not only would we be sending troops in to Syria, but we'd already be neck deep in Iraq. Don't even try to deny it you know it's true. Obama is THINKING before acting which is somehting Bush never did. He's also telling congress to put their money where their mouths have been the last 5 years. But thank you for proving my original point. No matter what Obama does you and your ilk will find a way to attack him for it.

I am very curious as to why you would write a politically motivated blog post with up to date information about President Obama's decision while lacking the foresight to actually see what has been in the news for 2 days prior to this post. In the past few days before this post was made it came out that the rebels accidentally set off chemical weapons they got from Saudi Arabia and said they had had no idea what they actually were. So blaming it on the Syrian government after the parties responsible came forward shows a serious lack in follow through on your part.

Go back and read the events surrounding Bush, he had both Senate and House approval, he had the intel that the Clintons and other leaders of the Dem Party reviewed and agreed to, Bush had a much larger Alliance than slow thinking Obama has, and he had UN approval.

Where has Obama done anything close any of that, and for you to claim Bush rushed into war is absolutely the height of stupidity.

If you believe Obama is telling every body to put their money where the mouth is you are a idiot. In finally following the Constitution Obama swore to uphold and obey(remember?) by asking the House to pre approve HIS military's action he can not lose. This is just an ego trip for Obama, I don't believe s thing he says. Remember the security uproar around our Embassy's recently? What became of that threat? Nothing! Just like Obama's promise to have unemployment under 78% by this time. Nothing? It's just something he says cause he has no foreign policy and wanted to look "Presidential" before he hit the golf links after his speech last Saturday.

If this is such a real threat as he claims isn't he using his Royal Executive power like he does other things?

Tell me Mozart, does your mommy still cut the crust off your PBJ sandwiches before she serves it too you while you're playing XBox in your bedroom inthe basement?

Obama is thinking. Thinking about the golf courses in Russia and when his next vacation is scheduled.

LOL Chuck! Did you REALLY resort to the "living in Mom's basement" gambit? Hilarious! That's like getting a Christian to say "God can do anything he wants" when they run out of valid arguments! PRICELESS. As for Bush getting congressinal approval, all he had to do was lie about the intel. If you check you will notice that even many Republicans retracted their approval when they found out there WERE no "WMDs" in Iraq and that Bush knew it. Either way it doesn't alter the FACT that those two wars, along with a tax cut for the richest people contributed heavily toi the economic crisis that came later. Also, you will notice I did not bring Bush into the conversation, I merely replied to someone who DID. Maybe you should go debate with him, you might have better luck. On the actual subject of this thread, Obama is handling this EXACTLY as he should, and just as I said in the first post people like YOU are finding ways to attack him for it.

Oh and Chuck, Bush took WAAAY more "vacatins" than Obama has, and besides, the POTUS is NEVER truely "off duty" unless you count Bush sitting silently for 7 minutes while the country was under attack. As for PB&J's, I still enjoy them, except now I use honey instead of grape jelly, and I make them myself. Nourishing and yummy!

"On three national television programs on Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry repeated an argument President Barack Obama had made on Saturday when Obama announced that he wanted Congress to authorize him to use military force in Syria.

The president does not need authorization from Congress to initiate acts of war, Kerry said.

“He has the right to do that no matter what Congress does,” Kerry said on CNN’s “State of the Union. “That is his right and he asserted that in his comments yesterday.”

“The President has the right and he has asserted that right that he could do what’s necessary to protect the national security of the United States at any point in time,” said Kerry." CNS News

Ok I agree that Obama does have this legal power. Clinton got the Senate to support his act of war while the House did not in his bombing in the Balkans. He bombed anyway. So Obama can and may follow the path of Clinton.

My questions are simple.

What is our exit plan once we start military action?What are the goals of the military plan? What National interest does Obama's attack address?Whose side do we NEED to be on?Are we prepared to handle the back flash from Syrian allies?

In June, the White House authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to help arm moderate fighters battling the Assad regime. To date none of the promised arms have been distributed. Why? Is it because there are no moderate forces to give the arms to? That there are only Jihadi militants fighting Assad? If that is the situation, why do we want to help the Jihadi militants by attacking Assad? Wouldn't that be a contradiction of the Obama Administration instructions to the CIA to only support "moderate" forces?

I am really starting to question the awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Price shortly after his first election. Wonder if it can be with drawn including the money that comes with the award?

The political theatre is buying time - you have to quit listening to what these folks say in the press. The plan is in place. Everyone will gradually "get on board" when the timing is right - including the Brits.

It isn't an issue we have the ability to ignore, and we all know we've been deeply active in the region for decades. To act is to act. To not act is to act. And, it's not even primarily about Syria. We're impacted in any scenario and we've been involved all along...

Quit acting like this is some sort of textbook essay question. We know about 0.01% of the real situation that exists. If you think you do, you are either very connected or delusional.

So you are all on board with the GOP leaders of the House and Senate on oking the attack Syria on with out any answers to questions?

Ok, thanks for stating your position. We know your position on Bush, what ever that has today with today, so now you can focus on thinking about the next War we seem hell bent for leather to get into.Shouldn't one of the first questions from you be, "How are we going to pay for this war"?

BTW not sure who I listen or don't listen to on the radio has to do with my questions, but I'm know I posted today before Limbaugh's show started in my area. What difference does it make in any way if I was or was not concerned with the last two wars? The fact is I am about this possible war that would result from Obama's use of his military. Did you ever think that your arguments against Bush have finally fallen on fertile ground and I now agree with you? By use of intelligent logic, I'm extending the arguments used against Bush against Obama. If the questions used on the Bush Wars are valid, they should also be valid on all wars, including Obama's correct?

Lets face it Mozart, you just don't like me and are going to go against anything I post regardless. That's ok, you still have that freedom, even with the NSA's actions under Obama.

P.S. those two wars were approved by the House and the Senate, the intel was from sources left over from the Clinton time in office, we had UN approval, and we had Allies who joined us. So in my view if there were any lies told, they were based on intel gotten from the previous President, which could be taken to mean that those members of Govt who later recanted their vote, did so when they realized the Clinton Intel was not the truth.

Harley A. You are correct, "we know about 0.01% of the real situation that exists". Hence my questions to the promised to be the most transparent President in our history. My real concern is that Obama has not even a thought about an exit plan from the war his attack on Syria could start. If he has given it some thought, he hasn't shared it with us, which goes back to his promise of transparency. I think the die is cast regardless of the results of the vote. I wish I was wrong.

CHuck, Limbaugh is on EVERY DAY. This discussion didn't start today, and if you don't want to be compared to Limbaugh, don't regurgitate what he says word for word (yes, I am forced to listen for a while a couple days a week) Just because Fox does not give you any real info, that does not mean the President doesn't have any. I'm sure his sources provide more facts than Fox. WE all know that you will bash Obama no matter what he does, and had Bush not condemned us to a decade of TWO fullscale wars, this incident would not be the issue it is today. You can apologize for him all you want, but Iraq and Afhanistan crippled our economy and taxed our armed forces to an amazing degree. And I don't know you well enough to like or dislike you, but I certainly disagree with your politics and debate tactics. YOu can also make all the excuses for WHY congres approved Bush's two wars, but the facts remain. BUSH LIED ABOUT THE INTEL. Period. It wasn't "left over from Clinton" unless Bush shut down the CIA from 2001-2003. He disregarded security memos which allowed 9-11 to happen and then he attacked the wrong people after. He let bin Laden run free for 8 years. Obama had to clean that up too. Obama is probably thinking about an "exit plan" which is why he hasn't already committed troops like Romney would have. BTW Bush's exit strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan was "let the next guy worry about it".

What I think we should do is NOT go in guns blazing or with missile strikes. We do a "Seal team 6" type operation and go get the ONE guy we need. Assad. He can come quietly, or we can do a "bin Laden" on him. Either way.

Ron Baldwin, first we have to determine why we feel obligated to do anything. If the cause of the deaths of so many is so great a reason, why haven't other countries joined us? Do they know something that we don't?

Militant Muslims are murdering hundred of Christians weekly in Africa. Not sure if all the deaths are due to a civil war going on in any of the countries where this is happening. Why not attack the militants vs. become entangled in a civil war in Syria? Why didn't we act in Tibet when China was killing thousands there?

How will attacking one side over the other in the Syrian civil war reduce the future deaths of thousands? Do we have intel that proves without a doubt that it was the Syrian govt who used WMD's?

How does a small limited, no guns blazing, taking out of Assad prevent the future slaughter of thousands more in Syria? Do we have proof that it was his call that allowed the used of WMD's?

Honestly, do we know what the back lash we will have if we take any military action?

Go back to Harley A's post. Do we have anywhere near the information we as citizens should have to support military action in Syria?

Ron, your questions are spot on and I agree with your conclusions! Please don't faint.Have you been listening to Limbaugh, like Mozart claims I have? Or watching Fox News?

To Mozart, you are not adding anything to this discussion except to prove that you just do not like me, (I'm ok with that). I know this is going to be a real shocker to you, but based on your listening to Limbaugh 2 days a week, you are listening to him more than I am. As for Fox news, maybe you know what Fox News will do at every instance, but since I rarely watch them, I don't. I would suggest you take your issues with both Limbaugh and Fox News up with them instead of me.Here's how you can reach them.

CHuck, you never cease to make me laugh with your complete misinterpretation of what anyone says. Another thing thast amazes me is that Fox news CLAIMS the highest ratings yet you can never get a conservative to admit watching. I do notice that you seem to have them on speed dial. Go figure. How much is your salary from them?

Seriously, thanks again for proving my points about conservatives. It doesn't matter what Obama does or how he reacts to any situation, you can still find ways to spin it into a bad thing.

Ever notice how conservatives always run from an argument they are losing and resort to namecalling as they go? I didn't bring Bush into this, I was responding to one of YOUR "loonies" trying to make a joke. Besides, I was correct when I said that had we not already been war weary from a decade of useless wars started by Bush, this would not be such an issue. As it is NO ONE( other than the defense contractors and their lobbyists) wants to see us rush into another one just as we are FINALLY winding down the other two. I was also correct in my original post. No matter what Obama does he's going to be attacked by people like you.

I completely get the argument of staying out of it and don't necessarily disagree.

But, I disagree with the assertion that our decision to not act will necessarily be the most stabilizing path. If we don't act and Israel feels threatened, things will get very exciting very quickly. And, we WILL get involved in a much worse situation. So, simply not acting and hoping it goes away doesn't solve anything and (as I said) IS a very clear and definitive action in and of itself. You cannot escape it.

We are living in a rouge nation, the U.S. has turned into a serial invader. I do not see any difference between us invading Iraq and Germany invading France. Unprovoked wars of aggression.

Everybody was so shocked over the Boston bombing, people were glued to the TV, oh the tragedy!The people in Syria be in the same situation only 10,000 times bigger in magnitude. And that's only the first day, Shock and Awe all over again.

If there were a country much more powerful than us, they would bomb the shit out of us for being such crazy murdering bastards.

All I can say is that this is a TOUGH call, and arent we ALL glad that Sarah Palin is not in the White House dealing with it? For that matter, if McCain thinks online poker is more important than paying attention in a meeting about this, I'm glad he's not there too. I'd seriously not mind George Bush SENIOR making the call, and I think Obama is making the right moves so far, but the thought of some of the clowns the GOP put forward lately scares the crap out of me.

Thanks for writing on this issue. You are a trusted opinion who always helps me see the light.

After all I've read of the possible retaliations and myriad reasons this is being pushed through by our government, I just can't help but think it's a bad idea that will lead to another long war.

While I feel pain for those that suffered horrendous deaths and the 100's of 1,000's more displaced, I can't see bombs helping the situation. I agree that we can't arm the rebels who can turn as our enemies since they hate us Westerners.

What can be done to throw out an ancient oligarchy that represses its people and bring a system of democracy to these Syrians? Any suggestions? Anyone?

Obama is between and rock and a hard spot here. I don't blame him for giving this to Congress to decide. I only fear their solution.

How to help Obama out of making this tough decision? The type of decision that comes with the job he has run for twice?? The kind of situation his background and job experience prepared him for?

BLAME BUSH!!!

"BILL O'REILLY: I think you've got to take emotion out of the equation. I see a lot of that emotion. I mean, Barbara Boxer, for example, would never support an action against Syria if Mitt Romney were president. Never in a million years. The only reason she is doing it is to help Obama.

On the other side, you have Republicans -- Ronald Reagan, if he were president, would get Assad like that. He would. He would get Assad. And you would have most conservatives line up against -- for Ronald Reagan, in support of Ronald Reagan. But the element here, Carville, is that many people think that Barack Obama is incompetent and he can't -- he can't do this.

JAMES CARVILLE: Well, I will definitely -- he's handled the Middle East pretty well so far. Bin Laden --

O'REILLY: Really? You really think so.

CARVILLE: Yeah. We have had revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, all across the place. Again.

O'REILLY: Libya a mess. Iran is defiant.

CARVILLE: Come on, look. When is all of this -- when was it not? I mean, Gaddafi is gone. It is a mess, I agree with that. But, you know what, it's a mess and we haven't lost any kids over there which says something and --

O'REILLY: I'm not sure that's a litmus test, it doesn't seem to be any clear vision on the part of President Obama. He doesn't have -- 'here is what I want.' He doesn't have that.

CARVILLE: You know, what I would say and maybe a little bit of a different view here. I think what really is freaking people out is the incompetence of the Bush administration in Iraq.

O'REILLY: You're going to blame Bush?

CARVILLE: Of course, the Iraq thing is why people have so much trepidation about going into Syria. They said the last time we went over there, look what happened. I really think this has something to do with it.

IT'S WORKED EVERY TIME AS AN EXCUSE FOR OUR PRESIDENT'S FAILURES, WHY NOT ONE MORE TIME?

Clearly "Mozart-o" is a troll and an idiot as well. Why not just post under your usual name instead of making one up to hide behind? Bush gets blamed for things he did wrong as he should be. He disregarded Nat'l security memos about bin laden and obsesod on Hussein, allowing 9-11 to happen. He sat staring into space for 7 minutes while it was happening. He did everything he could to connect Iraq to the attacks and lied about intel concerning WMD's to justify an invasion. He started another war in Afghanistan and all this after cutting taxes for the eichest people which went a long way towards crippling our economy. He went on vacation during Hurricane katrina and ignored it, leaving a man in charge who's last job was organizing horse shows.

Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who is aggressively lobbying against a military strike on Syria, says the Obama administration has manipulated intelligence to push its case for U.S. involvement in the country's two-year civil war.

Grayson made the accusation in an interview published Wednesday by The Atlantic and offered more detail in a Thursday discussion with U.S. News. He says members of Congress are being given intelligence briefings without any evidence to support administration claims that Syrian leader Bashar Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons.

Grayson said he cannot discuss the classified briefings, but noted details in the administration's public, non-classified report are being contested.

YUP MOZART-0-, THOSE REPUBLICANS ARE SURE MAKING IT TOUGH ON PRESIDENT OBAMA. MUST BE BECAUSE HE'S OUR FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT.YOU BETCHA HUH?

"Obama is not "confused" he's doing what Bush never did, he's getting all the informatin and THINKING before acting, and he's also including the congress in the decision which is what your GOP heroes have been whining about."

"No matter what Obama does he's going to be attacked by people like YOU."(YOU now includes Democrat Congressman Grayson?)

Ever wish you could take your words back instead of having to eat them? Mozart does. V.P. Biden does.

"Sept. 2, 2012, YORK, Pa. (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that Republican rival Mitt Romney is “ready to go to war in Syria and Iran” while hurting the middle class.

Great report,great post! Never forget the majority of Americans polled do not want, Obamacare, late term birth abortions legalized, increased Federal gun control laws, Ms. Obama's school lunch menu program, the NSA to continue its current spying on American citizens, and more spending on Green Energy.Mr. Obama is going to address by T.V. the nation on Tuesday 9/10/13 in an effort to pitch his case. That might mean something!

Check the link by clicking my name, interesting position from Ed Schultz on his T.V. show on MSNBC. (See, I don't watch FOX NEWS EXCLUSIVELY.) I imagine only the "Obama for President in 2016" Kool Aid Drinkers will agree with Mr. Schultz statements.

James, have the reasons I listed for not supporting an attack on Syria hit home with you? I ask because no poster has yet to agreed or disagreed with them, and wonder if it was my presentation. I thought this issue would open up honest debate from both the Left and the Right instead of the "attack the poster not their position" that has become so all common.

You realize, right, that the powers that be (of which Obama is just one) really don't care who initiated "the attack". Second, it is ridiculously arbitrary as a "red line". So, we've got the makings of what appears to me to be a coordinated effort to insure the war or the "military action" occurs. These wars are what allow the UN to "democratize" or "stabilize" a region (aka establish control) and allow international banking interests to establish controls over world assets.

Most of the reasoning being discussed has nothing to do with the reality of the situation (in my thinking anyway).

Maybe I'm cynical and completely off-base, but I don't think so. So, it sort of skews the prospect for debate in my mind.

I agree with you that "that the powers that be (of which Obama is just one) really don't care who initiated "the attack".I agree with you "lt is ridiculously arbitrary as a "red line."

I'm sorry but I do not agree with you that the the reason for this need to attack is driven to "allow international banking interests to establish controls over world assets."

If that were the case, why wouldn't the EU be all over this with support?

No, sadly I believe this is the result of a President who has not learned, after 4 years in office, how to have a foreign policy that exists for the benefit of our country vs improving his position in the polls. There is simply no reason for the "red line" policy, as it provides zero benefit for the USA. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe it must be for the benefit of Obama.

Chuck, you vcan't call a few fringe Teabaggers the "majority of Americans". Over 80% of people polled said they wanted a PUBLIC OPTION as part of the ACA, and the GOP refused to even talk about it. 88% wanted more background checks on the sale of firearms and the GOP refused to even discuss it. The majorty of Americans want INCREASED school lunch programs, it's the GOP that wants to cut it so they can tell their billionare masters they are "cutting spending" ANd the NDA has been checking phone records since 9-11 under BUSH but I didn't see you whining about it then. No one WANTS to go into Syria, but many people agree we may HAVE to if we want Assad to stop using chem weapons. It's allin the way the poll is worded. And Anonymous, keep making a fool of yourself, we need the laughs.

There is no PUBLIC OPTION in the ACA, so what difference does your quote make? People in favor of something that does not exist?

The latest Rasmussen Reports 9/2/13 national telephone survey finds that 41% of Likely U.S. Voters have at least a SOMEWHAT favorable opinion of the health care law, while 52% view it unfavorably.

By Paul Bremmer | September 5, 2013 The liberals at MSNBC continue their PR campaign on behalf of ObamaCare. On Wednesday’s PoliticsNation, the Rev. Al Sharpton cited one very convenient finding from a recent poll: only 6 percent of registered voters want Congress to delay and defund the Affordable Care Act. However, Sharpton ignored two other key findings from the same poll that were far less favorable to his pro-ObamaCare narrative, effectively bearing false witness about the poll's findings.

Speaking to MSNBC contributor Ryan Grim, Sharpton said, “[I]t’s complicated and there’s opposition but yet, Ryan, Americans are firmly opposed to defunding ObamaCare. A new poll out today shows just 6 percent – just 6 percent – of registered voters favored the defunding and delaying of the health care law.” The reverend was referring to the Morning Consult National Healthcare Tracking Poll that was conducted from August 29-31. He did not mention the overall finding of the poll, and it’s not hard to guess why. The pollsters found that 49 percent of all registered voters disapproved of the health care law, while 44 percent approved of it.

What’s more, Sharpton failed to mention what voters did want Congress to do about the law. The poll found that 30 percent of registered voters would like Congress to repeal the law, while 31 percent believed Congress should make changes to improve it. That left only 33 percent who wanted Congress to either let the law take effect or expand it."

Do you Mozart, even have a clue about what I'm talking about when I commented on "Mrs. Obama's school lunch menu"? Noting that, I see no reason to even reply any further to your comments other than to say you seem to agree with The Rev Sharpeton when he said on his program today, that Republicans opposed the plan to attack Syria only do so because it's Obama's plan and there fore are racist.

So far you have not responded to any of my reasons for not supporting attacking Syria, but instead have either attacked me for being a conservative or defended Obama. As I asked you before, don't you ever get tired of eating your owns words in defending this President?

I think it's unclear who used the chemical weapons. It doesn't make logical sense for Assad to have used them since he was gaining territory back.

I also think it's a mistake to bomb Syria even if they used chemical weapons. It just leads to more war and instability.

I mean we dropped 20 million gallons of Agent Orange in Viet Nam and no other nation tried to launch cruise missiles at us. Back when Saddam was our buddy we knew he was using gas against the Iranians. We don't exactly have the moral high ground here.

Maybe we should leave war for defensive purposes. Maybe if we hadn't outsourced most all of our production we wouldn't need endless war to support ourselves. Maybe we should move beyond left and right, and start dialing back our Empire. Maybe it's the Corpratacracy that needs to be brought into account; not the Middle East.

I just came to this page and there are A LOT of comment's. But I stopped at yours Anonymous@11:55 PM to reply,I completely get 100% even what Chuck was trying, to get through thick I wont just say he is making sense. Asking the questions we should all want to know, because of and this is where Motzart1220 "blame bush" comes in. Yes everyone wants a strategic plan, well thought out from start to finish, every scenario thought, discussed, if plan A doesn't go flawless then plan B, C, D, E, F, you get it. Layed out before we should do anything. This is because of prior disinformation given just to strike. (Not blaming Bush either, I read about history, I feel jipped that a lot I've learned teaching myself I wasn't taught in school.) But this is so right, your post caught my liking and I read the article. Kerry is pushing for us to go to war, with no concrete evidence! So how is the "Democrats" pulling the same thing Motzart1220 is claiming Bush did? Any different? Its not at all! Bush caught just as much damned if he did,damned if he didn't shit from liberals. Honestly since none of the wackjobs, in Washington want to learn from history. Don't bring it up as a defense for this current administration! What is going on right now, is the same thing that went on in 2003, but at least in 03 they had way more evidence. It wasn't only WMD'S in the reports, that was way more complex than this.911 happened, people wanted to attack over that, our gov had certain motives of their masters. But it was very different and more personal to America. Syria is a on going civil war among themselves, they are no threat to us, the last thing we need right now is put money into something that is only going to get us into a full fledged war. We don't need it, why didn't we do anything when the Ambassador, publicly got beheaded? I haven't got to reading treaties yet, I have been reading on my cell and it hurts my eyes such a small screen. But I am guessing we are not the only country that is committed, to the same terms and protection, when chemicals are used? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I also want to make this clear, I do not watch any news channels not even local news, I get a bunch of news sources from FB, Email, Flipboard, Feedly, they are both conservative and liberal views. I am an independent, I also only ever seen headlines for Rush's rants, never actually went into watch or read, I have views of both sides. But I relate more to conservative, liberals always end up with no logic, they seem to just want to argue, no matter if you asked them a simple question, gave them a very interesting alternative view. Its their way or no way, they will not admit they may be wrong, they will not admit that you made some pretty good points. They belittle you with anything possible, label, bully, anything but accept that people, even of the same party, don't always agree with the views of those in Washington. I don't like Obama he is no leader, hes a coward, since when is the American commander in chief a coward? Closing embassies, canceling on Putin? Why he ran into him anyway! Btw I didn't like Bush either, his years really took a toll on him though, at the end he was a mess. Obama is exempting him, both houses, Wallstreet, and whomever else, from The Affordable Care Act. Well your universal health care is so great, its good for we the people (they are suppose to work for us & employed by us). It should be good enough for them too, if I were president or even in Congress, I wouldn't push something so hard on people, that I myself wouldn't use, getting a REPUBLIC socialized health care? It shouldn't be to begin with, everyone has to remember they took a oath to uphold the constitution. There is so much in place and stuff they want to pass that is illegal to our constitution. We shouldn't be taxed out our asses, and we where never meant to not be self sufficient. We were not meant to have a government that babies,pampers, regulates, controls everything. Read the declaration of independence,the constitution, bill of rights, federalist papers (more so to the constitution), and anti federalist papers. We were meant to have freedom, liberty, happiness, and have a government but be independent. Sorry I got into a little that has nothing to do with Syria. I'm really so tired I'm delirious, but I believe we need to stop leaning on and depending on the government. It was they work for us, not take care of us. If we went back to making everything in the US, we all grew a garden, and got back to old values. We'd be happier then we are now, people are very miserable all the time, hardcore the last 10 to 15 years. (I know longer, but seems a point of no return.) Ok go ahead and hammer me now! Good night! :-)

Chuck, you can disagree with me, friend. A lot of times it's a safe bet :)

But I see much more at play here given other recent (last decade) events.

This is about the very real prospect of the unwinding of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency - particularly with it's position as the settlement currency for OPEC oil purchases. The dollar is weak and very near collapse. The BRICS would love to see this happen (thus Russia & China's opposition). Destabilization in the region is in their best interest.

PROPOSED MILITARY ACTION HAS LITTLE TO DO WITH HUMANITARIANISM OR "SIDES" IN SOME MEANINGLESS SECTARIAN FIGHT. Everything to do with the above.

In reality, there is no loner a clear "side" in this thing that we would even support.

What I would support is that we pitch in a big way to help care for the refugees - get FEMA involved perhaps. And, open our borders to the "normal" folks that would seek asylum here (heavily screened and profiled of course). I know a couple of good Syrians - great people. Sad that their country is being decimated by lunatics.

Dave, was it a "pig with lipstick" when Romney used it to great success in Massechusetts? The people there love it, and so far in states where they actually let it happen it's working and people like it.Y our ONLY problem is that Obama used it. And Smokey, stop letting Rush Limbaugh do your thinking for you. You look a fool. Anonymous, get off the Benghazi thing. Maybe going back to Obama's birth certificate would help.

look at all the bloodthirsty senators with a D wanting to go to war to support the Military Industrial Complex!

it must be BUSHES FAULT they are voting for the war. maybe they think BUSH is still president. what hypocrites. why don't they just vote present like obama used to?

Mozart said "I think that no matter what Obama does in this situation he's going to get ripped by the right. If he moves in to help the civillians who are being killed he's a warmonger. If he stays out of it he's an unfeeling coward."

At 11:38 AM,
Harry from a Subsidized Union run Michigan Prison said...

"I didn't make this red line"

"A youtube video caused this turmoil"

"I promise to end the illegal wiretapping program of the Bush administration within 30 days of being sworn in as your next president"

"We are not eavesdropping on law-abiding American citizens"

"If you like your plan, you can take it with you"

"I promise an open, honest debate on healthcare reform"

"My healthcare law has NO new taxes for Americans"

"I promise to cut the national debt in half within four years"

"Increasing the debt ceiling would be irresponsible and un-American, and I won't do it"

"I will give you the most transparent administration in our nation's history"

...Yet we are supposed to take you for your word now? I don't think so,

Evidently, the rest of the world doesn't trust you either. No credibility left except for progressive pinheads like Dave Dubya who still get a tingle up their legs when the Messiah reads from his teleprompter.

Between the Soviet style takeover of General Motors in 2009, shortly after being sworn in, Fast-N-Furious, a Justice Department out of control, the Benghazi disaster and cover-up, AND using the IRS to attack political opponents, this so-called "president" HAS no credibility to lose. The Emperor has no clothes.....

“No credibility left except for progressive pinheads like Dave Dubya who still get a tingle up their legs when the Messiah reads from his teleprompter.” Chuckie the hypocrite’s “Harry” alter ego. (He really HATES someone, doesn’t he?)

Translation:

“I can have it BOTH ways. No, I can have it anyway I WANT.” – Anonymous aka Chuckie “Hypocrite” Morre, aka Dave Alinsky Dubya.

Such a great example of a con-servative “Christian” hypocrite.

Thanks, Anonymous Harry Chuckie Dave Alinsky.

Just so you know, a certain “Anonymous”, Chuckie, Harry, Dave Alinsky, etc. had a history of this behavior at my blog. All these “characters” used the same tactics and language and were posted from the same ISP.

He used to go as “Just the Facts”, and still does at conservative blogs.

“If the questions used on the Bush Wars are valid, they should also be valid on all wars, including Obama's correct?” – Chuckie the hypocrite

LOL! Yeah, Chuckie was all about questioning the Bush Wars, right?...LOL!!!!

You really got me with that one. I forgot how cutting a3rd grade remark can be. but you know, in total darkness a "30 watt bulb" can be quite bright, and in the presence of conservatives there is not much light. And keep bringing the "Nazi" it makes you look SOOOO smart. Tell Glenn Beck we said Hi.

Why is destabilization in the region in their (BRICS) best interest? I still don't make the connection how the dollar losing it's current position would be helping them? What currency do they want to replace the US dollar with?

Until I read the article found linked to my name, I believed that all conflict with RADICAL Islamic military were based on

1. Hate of Jews2. Hate of Christians3. Hate of all infidels4. Desire to spread the religion of Islam by any means or methods

What the attached link provided for me was an insight that while Militant Islam is driven by all 4 reason I've listed, it is completely correct to assume that Militants can and are being used by fellow Islamic nations for Secular reasons. This totally muddies the waters because the Militants are still a threat to American citizens, but the countries behind the curtain using them, may and can be threat to our NATIONAL security and economy.

None of this provides a valid reason attack either side in the Syrian civil war. I can see a reason for the US to pitch in a big way to help care for the refugees - but not to get FEMA involved. I'm pretty sure there are non governmental relief organizations that can do this without enlarging FEMA, and expanding another Federal dept and bureaucracy.

I can not support in any way the opening of "our borders to the "normal" folks that would seek asylum here (heavily screened and profiled of course)", until we enforce our current immigration laws covering illegals living and continuing to cross our borders. Are we heavily screening and profiling the current alien coming across our boarder with Mexico? If not, why should we do that for Syrians seeking entrance? I say that playing devil's advocate, as I want the flow of illegals entering the US to be stopped NOW, before any talk of fast track to citizenship for those illegals living here now.

Anyway, that's my point of the view for now on the subject. It is subject to change an more truth become available.

"You don't run a long pass offense with Tim Tebow at QB, and you don't go to war with Obama as Commander-in-Chief. With another president, one who doesn't make decisions based on poll numbers or boneheaded speech bravado (red line), I might be swayed. But with Obama, it's ridiculous to believe this has a chance in hell of being successful."

I just checked my email now, you addressed that I'm a NAZI twice! Sorry I have a husband and kids, I'm not just sitting waiting for replies, from someone who is miserable, looking for a fight and put others down to feel like a man.

I just checked my email now, you addressed that I'm a NAZI twice! Sorry I have a husband and kids, I'm not just sitting waiting for replies, from someone who is miserable, looking for a fight and put others down to feel like a man.

I did not post any thing under any name in response to your post. Nor did i call or say or think or even dream you are or were or could become a Nazi.I have no idea who did call you that, and will tell you that Dave Dubya had recently admitted to posting using the name "the real Just the Facts".

I have no idea why Dave D.claims it is me when he has admitted to using different names when posting.

As I said, “Chuck Morre” was posing as "Dave Alinsky Dubya". He does this kind of thing all the time. I sincerely hope that you won’t be the first person he deceives with this dishonesty.

I’d sorry to see you dragged into “Chuck Morre”s troll game. “Chuck Morre” was never even around here, until he mocked a real person named Charles Moore. This is all back in the threads. Honest to God.

Now he’s attempting to deny his dishonest game.

I did not post any thing under any name in response to your post.

Quite true, he didn’t post any response to your post.

Nor did i call or say or think or even dream you are or were or could become a Nazi.

No, he just appropriated my name to transmit his personal hatred of me, as he was continuing his argument with Mozart, no less.

I have no idea who did call you that, and will tell you that Dave Dubya had recently admitted to posting using the name "the real Just the Facts".

I have no idea why Dave D.claims it is me when he has admitted to using different names when posting.

Here’s a little historical update. We go back a while.

He’s alluding to my honesty in revealing the little game he started by posting under multiple names. This is what trolls do. As “Just the Facts” he was even welcome at my blog. Then he started with the multiple names to hide behind his more vicious personal attacks.

He believes I work as a corrections officer, so he began to post as “Harry from a MI prison” is his act of contempt and disrespect for what thinks of me. This is what trolls do.

And that is only one of several of his names. He’s easy to spot, though, and his comments are still there to see out there if you care to go back and check.

So I had my fun and admitted to playing along with his game. So did he admit the truth?

Of course not. He is a zealot and hateful extremist. Claims to be Christian, of course.

So, as I previously noted his pattern of evasions:

“It's funny how you dodge the truth with your little technical evasions.

But will you swear to Jesus you never posted under other names?”

No?

No. Not even as “Just the Facts”.

This likely indicates he does have some sort of faith, albeit one that gives him special license to deception.

You would also clearly see in the comment record his refusal to answer anyone’s questions. But it’s OK for him to demand answers to his questions.

This all holds true to his pattern of being a troll. Really, he is a troll. Has been one for years now. And he’s been around long enough to get to know his style that cannot hide behind his falsely represented identities. He was appearing as “Just the Facts” at my blog back in the Fall of 2011. His trolling was ignored and soon he posted under more as “anonymous” others.

He was getting quite upset at me here around November of 2011.

As If you fail to take his questions seriously he will claim you are ducking honest debate, if you answer them, he will have deflected you from what he fears most, your providing proof that liberalism is a failed concept, if you ask him questions, he will ban you from his blog for asking questions, call your a troll

Soon after, he went on a multiple identity troll binge.

I am honestly telling you the truth, and unlike Chuckie, will swear to all that is dear and sacred this is all true.

I’m sorry that this nasty and dishonest troll has dragged you into his dirty little game.

Yes it does await, as it does for all of humans. Being a Christian doesn't mean perfection, it means forgiven. So while, my faith in my forgiveness is sure, my legs grow weak thinking about that face to face day with my Maker. It will be awesome!

Is there a problem with someone using the name "Dave Alinsky Dubya" to post under?